If the charges were false, filing the defamation might had been the right procedure. And that conclusion of the charges been wrong should only had came via an independent inquiry at first place, not by the same Judge against whom or whose family they were leveled; as no rightful and just legal system gives this right to any judicial officer for deciding the matters that are associated to one in any manner howsoever trivial it may be, leave aside the ones in which the Judge or one's family is a party.
Now the as far contempt of court is concerned, how could the allegations of corruption on a son of a judge (or even on the Judge too at one's personal capacity) amounts to the contempt of the court, under any judicial wisdom? Contempt proceeding is a very special power, though a colonial relic, given to the judiciary only to use in very special cases where any specific direction/order of the court is dishonoured (which is also questionable in itself), clearly not applicable in this case.
In Principle, in a democratic setup which is taking its authority from the will of the people, where "we the people" give the sanctity even to the highest law of the nation i.e. the constitution, the Judges are public servants, and they are answerable to the public. Thus applying the contempt on an allegation of corruption, is a clear misuse of office, and such Judge morally stand no right to be in court anymore!
It is the right thing to initiate the impeachment proceeding against such Judge in the higher judiciary whose integrity becomes questionable (and doubtful) due to such conduct.
Join at Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment